Bedini SG - The Complete Advanced Handbook
AVAILBLE NOW: Bedini SG -
The Complete Advanced Handbook

2015 Energy Science & Technology Conference - New Date & New Location! New Schedule coming soon... Energy Conference
Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > General Discussion
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

General Discussion Other general discussions on topics not listed above.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2008, 06:31 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,808
Common Law and UCC 1-308

Perhaps some experts here can educate us on this:






Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:
  1. common law
  2. equity
  3. admiralty
  4. maritime
At the common law - a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.



In equity - otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract and damages.



Maritime - or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military organizations.



Admiralty - is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)



All birth certificates, licenses, registrations, insurances, bank accounts, permits, titles, deeds, etc. are commercial contracts created under the UCC - (Uniform Commercial Code) and this is where the confusion begins. Most people do not know that commercial law cannot regulate private dealings between civilians much less where to draw the line.



Where does one draw the line?
The Uniform Commercial Code
The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by all states in 1964 making it the supreme law of the land. Take a look in the first part of every Federal and State code books and you will the find the Uniform Commercial Code consistent throughout.



UCC 1-103.6 defines how contract law must be in compliance with the rules of the common law providing there is made a knowing reservation of common law rights.



"The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law." (UCC 1-103.6)



What's the remedy?
"The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel." (UCC 1-207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. "I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!", the judge will most likely say, "You mention the Constitution again, and I'll find you in contempt of court!" Then we don't understand how he can do that. Hasn't he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say "I demand my Constitutional Rights?" No. The proper answer is: "THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN." You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.



UCC 1-207 goes on to say...


"When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date." (UCC 1-207.9)



You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
"The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as "without prejudice". (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: "Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4)." This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.



It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing "without prejudice UCC 1-207" on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
When you use "without prejudice UCC 1-207" in connection with your signature, you are saying, "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.”
UCC 1-207. Performance or acceptance under Reservation of Rights.
A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "WITHOUT PREJUDICE”,” UNDER PROTEST" or the like are sufficient.



Like this:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE” UCC 1-207”
First-Middle:Last

Your autograph is among your most valuable assets. It is not a good idea to autograph a contract without reserving your rights. If you must carry a driver's license you should get a new one with a reservation of rights above your autograph on the license itself. As a matter of fact it is wisest to reserve your rights in any agreement, just in case there is some small print that suggests waiver of your God given freedom.


NOTE:



UCC 1-308 now replaces UCC 1-207
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:54 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,808
The UCC Connection by Howard Freeman

THE UCC CONNECTION
by Howard Freeman

"I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove."

This is a slightly condensed, casually paraphrased transcript of tapes of a seminar given in 1990 by Howard Freeman. It was prepared to make available the knowledge and experience of Mr. Freeman in his search for an accessible and understandable explanation of the confusing state of the government and the courts. It should be helpful to those who may have difficulty learning from such lectures, or those who want to develop a deeper understanding of this information without having to listen to three or four hours of recorded material.

The frustration many Americans feel about our judicial system can be overwhelming and often frightening; and, like most fear, is based on lack of understanding or knowledge.

Those of us who have chosen a path out of bondage and into liberty are faced, eventually, with the seemingly tyrannical power of some governmental agency and the mystifying and awesome power of the courts. We have been taught that we must "get a good lawyer," but that is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. If we are defending ourselves from the government, we find that the lawyers quickly take our money and then tell us as the ship is sinking, "I can't help you with that--I'm an officer of the court." Ultimately, the only way for us to have even a 'snowball's chance' is to understand the RULES OF THE GAME, and to come to an understanding of the true nature of the Law.

The lawyers have established and secured a virtual monopoly over this area of human knowledge by implying that the subject is just too difficult for the average person to understand, and by creating a separate vocabulary out of English words of otherwise common usage.

While it may, at times, seem hopelessly complicated, it is not that difficult to grasp--are lawyers really as smart as they would have us believe? Besides, anyone who has been through a legal battle against the government with the aid of a lawyer has come to realize that lawyers learn about procedure, not about law.

The rest of the story here - do you own due diligence with this info:
UCC Connection
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:58 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,808
Argument against UCC validity

I've seen a lot of for and against the UCC concept being the actual law in effect.

Here is one argument against:
UCC

Anyone here have expertise on the subject they'd like to share?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-26-2009, 07:21 AM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
Exclamation Don't USE UCC, use jurisdiction

You are under the jurisdiction, unless you speak otherwise that you are not.
Your silence (or ignorance of otherwise) in not saying you are not under the
jurisdiction, declares that you are under the UCC jurisdiction. Legal BS but fact.
Just saying you aren't doesn't cut it either.

Using UCC to avoid or protect yourself from UCC is like
stepping into the snake pit to obtain the anti-snake-bite serum.
Stay out of the snake pit, please!!

You do not need to know the UCC rules or how to play.
If you learn the rules, they will only change them .. You can't win.

You only need to know what makes you a player in the UCC game.
If you are not a player, you are not under UCC jurisdiction.

I also thought UCC was "the key". It might be the supreme law of the land,
but everyone under it's jurisdiction, volunteered to be so, MOST without knowing they had done so.

"Not Knowing" you volunteered by definition, null and voids said contract that placed you under that jurisdiction.

What ? Yep, you MUST have knowingly volunteered, but even that alone does not make it valid.
When and how did you knowingly, with full knowledge, volunteer?

I mean no disrespect to anyone thinking UCC is the key to this puzzle,
but it seems you have been hook-winked into continuing to be a player.
Are we here to learn? I hope so.
I'm not trying to pick a fight or be political, I'm only trying to convey information.


I'll get to jurisdiction, but I have to lay some ground work first.

Commercial contract law applies to corporations/businesses and is
applied to these artificial creations ONLY.
These artificial creations only exist in the minds of men and on paper.

Commercial contracts can only exist between artificial creations.

We are tricked into thinking that these "laws" which only apply to
an artificial creation applies to us, the non-artificial, flesh and blood person.

Smoke and Mirrors, you have been lied to get you to volunteer into contract,
but they are all VOID.

Three questions must be first answered before the contract can be enforceable:
1) whether the corporation does in fact exist.
(In the minds of men and on paper exist?)
2) whether it has the capacity to enter into the contract and
3) whether the person signing on behalf of the corporation is, in fact, the authorized signatory.

(you are the authorized signatory of your corporation)

A contract must be voided by one of the two parties.
Don't go trying to VOID anything!! You must be "the player" in
the UCC game to VOID anything and it RED Flags you.

Example of voidable contract is one made when one of the parties is an infant. IE birth certificates.
The INFANT is required to void this contract.
Are you beginning to get the idea this is as close to real BS as it gets?

birth certificates = citizen which is another lie because the
birth certificate is invalid, but since the INFANT never protested, the lie
continues via TV, School, etc "You are born a citizen" .. BS.
You can't be born a citizen any more than you can be born a Boy Scout.
You may meet the qualifications, but you can not be "born" anything but a
boy or girl. You can't be born into a political party or group, of which,
a citizen is a political "group", more about that later.

GENUINE CONSENT
Example of voidable contract, a misrepresentation is, by definition, a statement which is false
and which must have induced one of the parties to enter into the contract.

Does this statement sound like inducement to you : "Everybody must get a License" , IE: Drivers' license

A specific type of mistake is sometimes referred to as 'non est factum' ,
Latin for 'this is not my deed' . This occurs when a person executes one form of document
thinking the document is something else.

IE: Marriage License. Declares the couple as incompetent.
Marriage licenses started out being only for the feeble minded and STAYED that way.

Duress occurs when a person is forced to enter into the contract against his will.
Is not everyone under duress every time you "MUST" (so you have been told)
involuntarily (as in NOT of your free will) get (remember you "MUST") a license, a
registration, insurance, bank accounts, permits, auto inspection, etc. etc.

Undue influence, on the other hand, is more subtle. Like duress it results
in one party losing his free will to contract out.

Undue influence, hmmm, 12 years of SCHOOL telling us you are a citizen, your parents
telling you the same BS (unknowingly, of course) and all those other lies about licenses, etc.

However it occurs more frequently when a person is in a superior or dominant
position in relation to another and uses this influential position to induce the other to
enter into the contract. Again, if undue influence is found, the contract is voidable at the
option of the innocent party.

Parents, teachers, church, police, etc .. Well boy-howdy .. they all tell you
"You Must" .. is this mind control? Tell a lie long enough and ...

RED LETTER TEXT above are from Fundamentals of Contract Law by Luigi Frascati .

I am only a parrot trying to put into the words on this page that of what I've heard.
(Yes, heard with my ears and not read .. )
I can't cover everything in this posting that needs to be covered.
I'm only a beginner in learning and I'm probably getting some of it wrong
so don't shoot the messenger. Hear it from the horse's mouth and then
if you think it is required, shoot the horse.
So the following will be a bit disjointed ...

Yes, UCC is involved in the artificial creation of YOU that is
under the jurisdiction of the supreme law of the land.
You, the flesh and blood you, can not be under the jurisdiction of any court
except common law.

You shouldn't worry about this artificial you, it's in the Game, it's the player.
It isn't important other than to know it's not you.
You never need to address the this artificial you.

Unless you show up to represent the artificial you by YOUR SILENCE.
The court wants the artificial you to "Appear" before the count.. POOF! It's magic.
It isn't your body, in the flesh and blood.

Government is political, period. In the minds of men, artificial again.
Governments are at least two political groups.
Two political groups, those that make the rules and those that follow the rules (ie: citizen)
Which group are you in?

You can't be born into a political group, (or citizen) and therefore you must have
volunteered to be in this political group called a citizen, at least that
is how you get tricked into all this mumbo-jumbo legal BS of UCC.

Key phase: "Political Jurisdiction"
If you are not under the Political Jurisdiction of the UCC then, hey, you are free.
Government is Political, UCC was created by Government and therefore
UCC is Political.
UCC has Jurisdiction over the artificial, over the Political artificial.
UCC has Political Jurisdiction.

Remember you can not be born into a Political group called citizen, you've been lied to.

This supreme law of the land which is supreme over a the totally artificial things
that only exist in the minds of men and on paper.
You must agree/volunteer to be a citizen (artificial Political group) and thus are under the Jurisdiction.

WHEN did you volunteer? What contract did you sign, that is was legal and VALID?
Was there full-disclosure of what that contract meant to you?
Never mind all those.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished is the KEY to unlock the chains of Political Jurisdiction.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

"involuntary servitude" IE: the Draft, mandatory registration for the Draft.
Hmmm, involuntary .. would not "mandatory" be involuntary?
If you are not under the jurisdiction, then it isn't a crime.

You can state: I did not knowingly volunteer and bingo.
DO NOT USE THOSE WORDS ABOVE.. that's an over simplified statement to get the point across.
The court is left with proving that you did volunteer, which they can never do. A signature
proves only that there was a signing. That alone does not make the contract valid.

"Please state you Name for the Court"
Whoops, that's a wrong move. You don't have a Name you are "Know As",
but you don't have a NAME. The Name is the artificial.
Property has a Name, you don't have an owner and therefore, you don't have a Name.
It must be "I am known as X".
A Name as you know it is hear-say and also has legal overtones.

"When were you born?"
Whoops, that's a wrong move.
Again this is hear-say. Your parents told you when you were born.
The ones that told you Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real. Ok!!!!
It's hear-say and the court needs a Birth date to NAIL DOWN your NAME. No single person
in the history of the world knows when they were born. Everyone has been TOLD when they
were born and you do not know it as an eye-balled witnessed fact.
You were told so, like "You MUST get a license". OK!

"Are you appearing before this Court"
Whoops, that's a wrong move. You can't appear as in you were invisible and you and poof,
you "APPEARED" before the court. That's the artificial again.

The point is, claiming to be a citizen (artificial) or staying silent about it,
brings you under jurisdiction.

This isn't how to say out of the snake pit, but is enough to begin
to see the logic that prevents you from being entangled under the
Political Jurisdiction called UCC and only common law or equity applies
to flesh in the blood people.
There's much more .. the 14th add. is involved too
Learn why the constitution IS only a piece of paper,
again you've been lied to and "told" what it means...
Learn what amendments never applied to citizens.

I'll quit for now.

Randy

I hope you can join me in learning more about staying out of the snake
pit. Learn via listening and/or type chat and/or phone in to ask questions.
Signup is free and required to type chat or ask questions, otherwise just listening does not require a signup and is free.
PM me for link to learn more, meetings are every week night 9:00 PM EST
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-26-2009, 06:03 PM
Sephiroth's Avatar
Sephiroth Sephiroth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 971
wow... I just noticed this thread! It is one of my favorite subjects after free energy

For any humans in the UK, here is a recording of the first Freeman on the Land conference in the UK.

Freeman Conference UK Part 1

It will also be useful for anyone in any commonwealth country, but it is most relevant to the UK.

Enjoy!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-27-2009, 09:37 AM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth View Post
wow... I just noticed this thread! It is one of my favorite subjects after free energy

For any humans in the UK, here is a recording of the first Freeman on the Land conference in the UK.

Freeman Conference UK Part 1

It will also be useful for anyone in any commonwealth country, but it is most relevant to the UK.

Enjoy!
Sephiroth,
On Freeman Conference UK Part 6 @ 21:30 they mention a Youtube user.
I'm a horrible speller and can not even begin to try to spell that users name.

Do you know how that Youtube users name is spelled?

Everyone please remember that when you are asked if you understand,
You make sure you say that you do not UnderStand
Thanks
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-27-2009, 07:45 PM
Sephiroth's Avatar
Sephiroth Sephiroth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 971
This is the guy

YouTube - darrenpollard1st's Channel

I haven't checked out his vids yet... I'm reading Mary Crofts book at the moment.

http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/f...mary_croft.pdf
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-28-2009, 01:56 AM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
the WHY of Everything?

Thank you for the youtube link, I'll report about what I find.

I had much trouble obtaining valve from Mary's writings. Here is her web site blog.
You do get the idea there is much of valve there, but useful details are missing.
Maybe it's just me.

I just finished these Eye-opening Videos of the WHY of Everything (that's my take on it, not the authors)
Which was mentioned in the Freeman Conference UK videos.

The Mayan Calendar Comes North 01 - Ian Xel Lungold
The Mayan Calendar Comes North 02 - Ian Xel Lungold

And I'm now watching these, about how to handle the future stress of change/events which are speeding up.
Not to keep from becoming insane , but hopefully how to prevent self-destruction.

The Mayan Calendar The Evolution Continues Part 1
The Mayan Calendar The Evolution Continues Part 2

As time grows shorter for meaningful thought, as events flood forth, after a point,
thought becomes the enemy. I worry now about the time I have left for
obtaining information that could be helpful while thought can still be useful.

Am I sounding like I'm already insane, does anyone understand this babble?


Randy
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:56 AM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
Voluntary Servitude by Deception

The Video: "Voluntary Servitude by Deception"
that covers most about what I was trying to express in my post

Please view the video above, now, before reading onward.


Contracts by deception, non-disclosure, etc. are null and void.
Do not play the UCC game.

Using UCC requires you to voluntarily, in writing, confirm that you
are in valid contract and under jurisdiction.
Then use UCC to some how remove it's power over you after
you just got done declaring it's valid... voluntarily without deception.

UCC means you have to state: "I'm in the game, I'm here voluntarily,
I'm under this jurisdiction." before you can state: "I'm getting out of this game".

WRONG WAY...They make the rules ..

Everything, 100%, is null and void.
no Forms to fill out,
no declarations,
nothing in writing required.

If you were NOT deceived, lied to, tricked or conned into it, then
YES, you would have to use UCC to get OUT.

The Video is Wrong about Gold/Silver as money. That will not work in today's
economy .. There isn't enough gold and the Government can not OWN GOLD,
only use it to make currency, so it MUST again (hello wake up) come from private owners.

The 13th and 14th amendments are key to understanding how we are in this mess.
But the real story begins with the CONstitution.

You can not use the word citizen due to it is ambiguous ..
The video is WRONG. You would have to use an entire paragraph of words to
define what you mean by using the word citizen every time.
Did you mean STATE instead of FEDERAL citizen.
Besides, it's a STATE driver's license, STATE birth cert., etc, etc.
You do not want to claim a STATE citizen title either.
Citizen is ambiguous
Google of these two words: legal ambiguous
results in 3,190,000 hits, anything that is ambiguous is a BIG LEGAL PROBLEM.

Do not use that word, you are a citizen only because you were lied too.
You never voluntarily signed a contract to become a citizen, you were tricked
into signing something because you were told you "Have To" .. a lye, which by default made you a citizen.

Government is political, (see definition: Government)
A Republic is made up of at least two political classes: those that make the rules and those that follow the rules.
Therefore, everything Government creates is political by definition. Laws, Courts, etc. etc. etc.

In the CONstitution there are two political classes, remember Republic.
"We the people" and Citizen .. read it. Two political classes.

If this were not so, then the government would not be called a REPUBLIC and a
different, never ever used before .. NEW word, would have been used to
call the new kind of government.
It was never intended to be a "new" kind of government, that's way it was called a Republic.
It's politics, nothing personal, tell the citizen what they want to hear .. lie
put it in writing , call it a CONstitution.

People is one political class and citizen is the other political class.

With that in mind, the two political classes, read the amendments again
as see were those two words are used: people and citizen
If neither word is used, would that not be ambiguous ?

Legal=political=government

Be aware of the Smoke and Mirrors
Randy
(not the end of this story, just seeing if anyone is listening)

The patriots are out-to-lunch and don't have a clue.
Define patriot:
one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests (Authority = Jurisdiction)

Don't be a patriot either... that's political
Until we are all telepathic .. words can be dangerous.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:22 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,808
listening

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vortex View Post
(not the end of this story, just seeing if anyone is listening)
Yes, very carefully.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-14-2009, 02:31 PM
sr_ryan1 sr_ryan1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
iv just become aware of all this, so the way i read it is "the federal government only has jurisdiction in washington D.C. but they can also have jurisdiction over me with there UCC laws if i voluntary become a US citizen." so by staying silent or providing proof of SSN, name, birth cert, and driver licence and any other forms of ID's or signed contracts makes me a US citizen.
So then what would i do if a state trooper pulled me over and said sir you where speeding let me see your drivers licence, than i would say sorry officer i cant do that, than he would just say well i'll just run a check on your licence plate but what if i didnt have a licence plate? than he could run the VIN on the car but what if the car was not registered, than he would say let me see your insurance but what if i didnt have insurance? I thank after that he would call back up and say sir put your hands behind your back your underaresst.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-15-2009, 12:18 AM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr_ryan1 View Post
iv just become aware of all this, so the way i read it is "the federal government only has jurisdiction in washington D.C. but they can also have jurisdiction over me with there UCC laws if i voluntary become a US citizen." so by staying silent or providing proof of SSN, name, birth cert, and driver licence and any other forms of ID's or signed contracts makes me a US citizen.
So then what would i do if a state trooper pulled me over and said sir you where speeding let me see your drivers licence, than i would say sorry officer i cant do that, than he would just say well i'll just run a check on your licence plate but what if i didnt have a licence plate? than he could run the VIN on the car but what if the car was not registered, than he would say let me see your insurance but what if i didnt have insurance? I thank after that he would call back up and say sir put your hands behind your back your underaresst.
sr_ryan1, check your PM, I replied.

Yes, it's a quagmire.

In court, it's assumed you are under jurisdiction.
Not saying it is not so, is basically saying Yep I agree to whatever you could be assuming, I'm not an exception to the norm.

There is no interaction to take, only things to learn.
I can't tell you what to do. This isn't a math test, something you memorize.
No silver bullet, quick fix or crash course.
You must learn the concepts. All of it before you can do anything.
You can't make an intelligent decision about what to do without knowing
the pitfalls of those actions.

For example, just following these steps would get you into a deeper quagmire
because you must know the concepts before taking action.

You can't use a bank account without a Social Security Number, Cash only.
Prepaid Credit Card can be purchased at Walmart, just like a phone card.

You must understand the truth that you don't know when you were born.
Everybody on this Planet does not know when they were born.
You were told about the Ester Bunny, Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus
and you were told when you were born.
You were told you were born.
You don't have any first hand knowledge how you come into being.
You don't know.
If your Name and Birth Date were tattooed upon your BUTT on the day
you were born, you still would not know via first hand knowledge that either one was true.

You change your name. The born name you were told was your name.
Now you know your name, because you selected it.

The only time a Birth Name or a Birth Date becomes important is if you are
involved with the political government, otherwise neither one is required to function in daily life.

No forms to fill out, You just change your name. It dominoes from there.
New name and an unknown birth date which means you can't legally obtain a birth cert.
No birth cert, you can not obtain a driver's license.

I'm working on this yet.. I don't have the details.
You have a trust for your auto, call it "EZ4U Leasing"
You have another trust for other property than autos.
The mandatory auto insurance is one less thing to fight over, but
to get that without a driver's license is an issue.

About that jail thing, that part requires lessons to be learned also.
Your mind IS in jail right now, isn't it?
That's a good thing, most don't understand that much.
What's a little time spent in physical jail compared to being in one 24/7?

There isn't a crash course available, so it's best to learn this stuff
before getting yourself into jail.

I hate posting because whatever I say is never enough to cover the subject.

I'm only a student of the teacher.
Randy

P.S.
I wish not this thread to become a debate about the teacher or his teachings
and thus I am not posting links here.
Nor I am qualified to take his role in answering questions about his teachings.

It's like going on a safari into the jungle, without a guide, you could become
confused or lost or turn back and I don't wish that to happen.
With that said, reluctantly here is the 14th Amendment explained by the teacher on Dec 28, 2005 and
yes he is still teaching live 5 days a week.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2009, 07:10 AM
ANTIQUER's Avatar
ANTIQUER ANTIQUER is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 0rlando,fl., u.s.a.
Posts: 482
Hi Vortex;

As I understand it, this is the form to get out from under their thumb.

AFFIDAVIT OF REVOCATION AND RESCISSION

The points stated make the case pretty clear.
Please correct me if I or it are wrong.

Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-16-2009, 09:36 PM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
Quote:
Originally Posted by ANTIQUER View Post
Hi Vortex;

As I understand it, this is the form to get out from under their thumb.

The points stated make the case pretty clear.
Please correct me if I or it are wrong.

Al
NO absolutely NOT NO
ANTIQUER, read 14th Amendment explained

The document you linked to has a DISCLAIMER:
"If the work is yours please email me and we can work something out.
I want to give the author the credit they deserve or remove the piece.
"
The document is written by an Unknown Author with an unknown history.

ANTIQUER said: " points stated make the case pretty clear"
Ok, clear to you as a non legalese expert ?, that's how we the non-legalese
language users keep getting suckered. "points seemed pretty clear."
That's the game, to make you think you know what is going on.
legalese : the specialized language of the legal profession

Business done in the legal play ground has to be done using only legalese.
Their rules, their game, their playing field and you MUST use their words.
Do you really want thier play in that game?

I didn't read the document, I didn't have to read it to know it is wrong.
I will try to explain why.

Would you send that document or any other such document to the
manager of Walmart? Of course not, he/she has no authority over you
unless you work there at that Walmart.
No authority, no action, no document.

If the manager of Walmart walks up to you and tells you to mop the floor
what are you going to do if you don't work there?
It's obvious the manager has mistaken you as a citizen, I meant employee.
Exactly, same difference.
He thinks you signed up voluntarily, filled out the employee contract.
No big problem really and you instruct him otherwise, the manager assumed
and was mistaken.

You don't seek out the manager of Walmart and tell he/she "I'm not going to
follow any orders you might give me." That's crazy, right?
Well that manager is going think you are crazy and you could end up in deep trouble, might you?

If you sent the manager of Walmart a NOTICE saying
"Hey, I'm going on vacation for the rest of my life, keep my health benefits paid up ok?"
Do you not think the manage of Walmart would get the impression you are
a citizen, I meant employee, of Walmart? The manager would instruct another
employee to fire you (put you in jail).

The authority believes they have authority like the mistaken manager of Walmart.
Same difference.
But you don't go hunting them down and getting in their face and tell them listen to me...

I thought I could do this, I can't.
Listen to the audio archives ..
It isn't easy. You have unlearn or forget things you have been told.
You probably will not get it the first time.
You have to put in a lot of time. You have to learn how to listen.
Think about how long it took to be programmed.
It's not a course, there isn't a 1,2,3.
Live interactive 09:00 PM EDT Monday-Friday

Understanding comes with time, some of what the UCC folk teach is of value
for understanding whys, but NOT the hows.
A lot is like walking on razor blades.

Randy
I strongly suggest you watch this
video to get a feel of what this legalese IS.
Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 04-18-2009, 10:41 PM
Vortex Vortex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 899
Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.zip

I've downloaded the HTML and Text files of this law dictionary.
In addition to the files found online, I've merged the HTML A-Z into a single file for easy "in your browser" text searching.
Those files/dictionary are found here for your offline use.

The online source of the above zip file is here.

Randy
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-03-2009, 02:19 AM
somamagus somamagus is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1
Common Law and UCC 1-308

Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:

1.common law
2.equity
3.admiralty
4.maritime
At the common law - a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.

In equity - otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract and damages.

Maritime - or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military organizations.

Admiralty - is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)

Where did you see this?

I looked up Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution, Googled it and I got this:

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Again, where did you find the above?

Article III, Section 2

Soma
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2011, 03:05 AM
RobBas RobBas is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1
Hi Everyone :)

Hey guys, I am just starting out studying about the UCC and the strawman. I want to know if anyone give me advice on how to start and what to study. My mother is also having legal troubles and I want to help her, but I don't really know what to do. If anyone can help please respond. Thanks!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-02-2011, 04:04 AM
Kokomoj0's Avatar
Kokomoj0 Kokomoj0 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 386
just some stuff:


Placing fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and the arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the president as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy.” 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen 438.

in-Chief means Sovereign!

“Pursuant to the “Law of the Flag”, a military flag does not result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: “Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a ship owner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster and that he submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all” – Ruhstrat v People, 57 N.E., 41, 45, 185 ILL, 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

“This power is as extensive upon the land as upon the water. The constitution makes no distinction in that respect, and if the admiralty jurisdiction, in matter of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between the different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on the land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be the foundation of jurisdiction on its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on the water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on th eland.” – Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)

‘Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the admiralty.” Jackson v Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315 (U.S. 1852)

This began the most dangerous precedent of all Insular cases. This where Congress took a boundless field of power. When legislating for the States, they are bound by the Constitution, when legislating for their insular possessions they are not restricted in any way by the Constitution. Read the following quote from Harvard law review of AMERICANS INS. CO. V. 356 BALES OF COTTON, 26 U.S. 511, 546 (1828), relative to our insular possessions:

These courts then are not Constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the constitution, but is conferred by congress in the execution of those general powers which that body posses over th eterritories of the United States.” -- Harvard Law Review, Our New Possession, page 481.

“…[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution….” “In exercising the power, Conress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the United States, ….And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of the executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possession, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of the executive and legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable,” – Hooven & Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

“It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution.” – Downs vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

“It is only with the extent of powers possessed by the district courts, acting as instance courts of admiralty, we are dealing. The Act of 1789 gives the entire constitutional power to determine “all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,” leaving the courts to ascertain its limits, as cases may arise.” – Waring et al, v. Clarke, Howard 5 12 L, ed. 1847.


No reference: claimed; 1845 Congress passed an act saying Admiralty law could come on the land. The bill may be traced in Cong. Globe, 28th Cong., Session 43, 320, 328, 337, 345(1844-1845), no opposition was reported.


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2012, 11:20 AM
Peter M Peter M is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Corpus delicti (plural: corpora delicti) (Latin: "body of crime") is a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime. For example, a person cannot be tried for larceny unless it can be proven that property has been stolen. Likewise, in order for a person to be tried for arson it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines "corpus delicti" as: "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

What is a crime… Injury loss or harm
Violate someones rights or cause Damage
In every prosecution for crime it is nessecary to establish Corpus delicti

As fare as i'm aware, this mean that that the court has to produce the injured party as far as parking tickets go, as they cant produce an injured party so the case should be thrown out?
Thanks, still learning :-)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-28-2012, 02:24 PM
ddugard's Avatar
ddugard ddugard is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: I live in south Louisiana - NO we Don't wrestle Gators in our back yards!
Posts: 1
Unhappy Starting line

I have spent about 2 hrs on this site reading every statement. OK so where to Start on becoming a Freeman? Also my only source of income is Social Security disability. Should I do this? I do want this for my wife and children. Someone Please HELP.

Thanks

Dale
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-20-2013, 10:02 PM
Randomeyes Randomeyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11
Tons of misinformation

This entire thread is full of misinformation. It's clear that none of you understand what the UCC is, and, more importantly, what it isn't.

I'm sure that this post will be summarily deleted along with my account, but I felt it my obligation to try to let someone reading it know that what you're selling here is a bunch of worthless, pseudo-legal nonsense.

If it were just a bunch of guys talking about fringe theories, that would be fine...Unfortunately, real people are hurt by these theories. Gullible people believe this stuff and try to use it in court and end up in jail, owing a lot of money, or both.

If anyone here is interested in understanding the UCC, I'm more than willing to help. The truth, however, is nowhere near as interesting as the outlandish fiction that has been propounded in this thread.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2013, 06:47 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,808
Ucc

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomeyes View Post
If anyone here is interested in understanding the UCC, I'm more than willing to help. The truth, however, is nowhere near as interesting as the outlandish fiction that has been propounded in this thread.
Then post something that will help everyone understand what you believe to be the truth.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2013, 12:55 PM
Randomeyes Randomeyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11
Applicability of UCC

First, it's important to remember that the UCC isn't law. It wasn't written by legislators. It was written by the American Legal Institute. It is simply a model set of laws that states can choose to adopt, modify, or reject. Every state has adopted at least part of the UCC, but significant changes have been made from state to state.

Most importantly, however, is the scope of the UCC. It is simply a set of proposed laws about commercial transactions. It has nothing to do with a person's civil rights or status before a court. It also has nothing to do with birth certificates or criminal prosecutions.

It is about business transactions only

This thread's title says it is about § 1-308 of the UCC, so I'll start there. That particular provision is about contracts. The section says:

§ 1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights.

(a) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice," "under protest," or the like are sufficient.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

The general structure of contract law is offer and acceptance. One party makes an offer and another party accepts it or rejects is. A counter-offer is a rejection and an offer which the original party is free to accept or reject. Generally, offers are accepted by simply manifesting assent (Saying, "I agree"). Some offers, however, can be accepted by performance. "Performance" in contract law simply means doing whatever the contract requires one to do.

§ 1-308 is designed to address situations where a party wants to accept the contract and perform on it, but doesn't want to give up certain rights as a result. This can occur when a particular term in the contract is not to the party's liking, etc. In such cases, the accepting party can perform on the contract after explicitly reserving rights and thereby not be bound by the offending term. Let me give an example.

I give you $100 today. Tomorrow, I ask for it back. You tell me, "that was a gift." I say, "no, it wasn't. If you don't give me back the $100, I'll charge you interest of $10 a day until you do." A week passes, and I tell you, "You now owe me $170 including interest, but I want the $100 now."

Now you're in a situation where you're under no legal obligation to give me a dime, but you'd like to end the situation now so you're willing to give me $100 back, but you'll be damned if you'll ever pay me interest on it. In such a situation, you can write me a check for $100 reserving your rights so that I can't come back later and say that you writing the check was an admission that you owed me the money, and therefore the interest.

That's all § 1-308 is.

It's not sexy. It's not exciting. It's not some way to exempt yourself from law.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2013, 03:27 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,510
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
Conspiracy Against Rights


This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.


Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law


This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


FBI — Federal Statutes

Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-21-2013, 11:53 PM
Randomeyes Randomeyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11
You bring up a federal criminal statute as if it's relevant to the UCC. It isn't. The UCC has no criminal application whatsoever.

I'm starting to think that the ideas in this thread are just another derivation of the "sovereign citizen" nonsense that has universally been rejected in every court.

If you're interested in discussing theoretical meanings to laws that you don't understand, then this thread is a good place to start. If, however, you want to really understand how courts and the law operates, this thread is of no use whatsoever.

I sincerely hope that none of the 66,000+ views of this thread resulted in someone actually trying to use any of this nonsense in court. People suffer real harm when they believe this stuff and make decisions because of it. Wesley Snipes served over 2 years in federal prison because of it, and many other less known people have suffered as much or worse.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2013, 02:30 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomeyes View Post
People suffer real harm when they believe this stuff and make decisions because of it. Wesley Snipes served over 2 years in federal prison because of it, and many other less known people have suffered as much or worse.
Wesley Snipes was facing 16 years in prison and $50,000,000 in fineswhen the IRS unfairly prosecuted him for tax evasion and tax fraud in what the New York Times called, “the most significant tax trial in two decades.” Hired only three weeks before Snipes tax evasion trial began, Wesley Snipes attorney Robert Barnes, engineered a “stunning” legal defense leading to Wesley Snipes full acquittal on all tax evasion and tax fraud charges.

Wesley Snipes is an innocent man.
A jury of twelve men and women said so.

- They said so unanimously when the government charged Wesley Snipes with criminal tax conspiracy,
acquitting him of all conspiracy charges.
- They said so unanimously when the government charged Wesley Snipes with criminal fraud, acquitting him of all fraud charges.
- Nine of the twelve agreed Wesley Snipes was innocent of any misdemeanor failure to file charge.
- Three jurors, who later admitted lying to get on the jury, led to three misdemeanor convictions.

Wesley Snipes v. the IRS
Kenneth Starr had been defrauding his clients for decades, including Al Pacino, Natalie Portman, Sylvester Stallone, Uma Thurman, Joan Stanton Ten years later, the government would call and vouch for Ken Starr at a jury trial, calling him a “competent tax professional” who was truly “trustworthy” while the government accused Wesley Snipes of criminal tax fraud. Two years after the trial, the truth came out – Kenneth Starr had been defrauding his clients for decades, includingAl Pacino, Natalie Portman, Sylvester Stallone, Uma Thurman, Joan Stanton, in an investigation, which netted corruption indictments against a leading New York City political figure, Andrew Stein. The government that previously vouched for Starr in Snipes’ trial refused to take any corrective action concerning Snipes after discovering Wesley Snipes had always been telling the truth about Starr.

Tax Evasion | Wesley Snipes | Barnes Law LLP

Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2013, 02:59 AM
Randomeyes Randomeyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11
Copy/paste all you want, but the fact is that such arguments have always lost in court. This is why spreading misinformation like this is so harmful
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2013, 05:32 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomeyes View Post
Copy/paste all you want, but the fact is that such arguments have always lost in court. This is why spreading misinformation like this is so harmful
The fact is that Wesley is
Bad Example [Lyrics On Screen] - YouTube
Wesley Snipes was fully acquitted on all tax evasion and tax fraud charges.

Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2013, 11:17 AM
Randomeyes Randomeyes is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 11
He was convicted of three counts of willfully failing to file a tax return un 23 U.S.C. § 7203. He went to prison for it. On top of that, he has to pay all of the taxes he failed to pay.

That's what happens to people who believe the lies spread by "sovereign citizen" advocates. People who do believe such nonsense and use it in court always lose.

Once Again, Sovereign Citizens Making Life Difficult for Sane People | Law Blog
“Sovereign Citizens” leader heads to jail on tax fraud - Salon.com
Sovereign citizen members jailed for selling vacant homes | 11alive.com

To those of us who actually study and work with the law, the "sovereign citizen" stuff initially looks like comedic gibberish until we start to see the very real harm that comes upon good people who get caught up in believing the stuff. People lose everything they have because some guy on the internet, using pseudo-legalese, convinced them that there was some secret underground system of laws they could use to exempt themselves from some obligation or another. Usually, the victims are already in a desperate situation such as facing foreclosure, etc., so they are easy prey to these snake-oil salesmen.

The remedy for false speech is more speech. I'm just trying to do my part to provide some truth for anyone who might come here looking for a magic solution to his/her problem.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-22-2013, 05:23 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,510


The Direction Is Clear
At least two troubling aspects of the Court's treatment of the sovereign rights and powers of Indian tribes emerge from a look at the development of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty. First, the Court has moved away from the concept of intrinsic tribal sovereignty that predated the coming of the European conquerors, and has adopted the view that tribal sovereignty, and the concomitant freedom of the tribes from encroachments by the states, exists solely because Congress has chosen to confer some protections on the tribes.

Second, whatever the doctrinal underpinnings of tribal sovereignty may be, it is clear that the sovereignty of American Indian tribes has been progressively and systematically diminished by the actions of the federal government, including the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's changing stance on tribal sovereignty

Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007-2014 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved